SECOND READING. (Hansard, 11 March 1880)

§ EARL STANHOPE,
in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he should have only two or three remarks to make upon it. At present, it was extremely easy to obtain from the magistrates licences for beer sold by retail for consumption off the premises. A man who wanted a licence obtained a wholesale beer dealer's licence from the Excise authorities as a matter 789 of course, and then went before the magistrates, who had no power to refuse him unless it could be proved that he bore a bad character, or that his house was not duly qualified by law. The object of the Act with reference to the sale of beer for consumption off the premises was to enable brewers to dispose also of their beer by retail; but, in recent years, small shopkeepers had taken advantage of the law, especially in some of the Northern counties, and in the Metropolitan area. He found that in Bradford there were, in 1872, 11 shops for the sale of beer off the premises, while, in 1876, there were 418; and in a certain village in Durham every shop had obtained power to sell beer in this manner. Such a number was far beyond what could be necessary, and he feared the system led to secret drinking, especially amongst women. A vast number of committees of magistrates, both in town and country districts, recommended such a change as this Bill proposed. The Bill had been before the other House and had received the approval of both parties, and had also received the sanction of Her Majesty's Government. It really consisted of but two enacting clauses. The first gave power to the magistrates to refuse or grant a licence according to the merits of each case. The second provided that licences should be granted at the annual licensing meeting of magistrates, instead of at the special sessions. The object was to let the public know when to apply, and also that it might receive a more full consideration than it might otherwise do from the magistrates interested. Really this seemed a proposal so very moderate, and so much demanded in the interests of temperance and good order itself, that he could hardly think any serious objection would be offered to it. He might add that the reason grocers' licences were not included in the Bill was that there would have been no chance of carrying the Bill during the present Parliament if it had been so weighted.

§ LORD ABERDARE
said, this question was in itself a small one, but it involved a large general one, which was whether the whole of the licences for the sale of intoxicating drinks should be 790 under the jurisdiction of the magistrates? He appealed to the Government not to deal with the question in this piecemeal way. Suppose this Bill passed, anyone would be able to obtain a bottle of brandy or spirit of any kind from a house not directly under the jurisdiction of the magistrate; but if he required a bottle of ale there would be no alternative for him but to go the public-house, because the beer dealer could not sell less than a dozen bottles, and he would not be likely to submit to the discretion of a magistrate for a retail licence. The very object of this licence was to enable people to buy beer in small quantities at other places than at the public-house. It might be shown, that there were evils attending the sale; but the evidence given before the Committee of their Lordships' House, which sat two Sessions ago, resulted in their expressing their opinion that it was not expedient to grant the power, which was asked for by this Bill, to the magistrates; and he could see no reason wiry the objects it was desired to accomplish by this measure could not be realized by other means. For instance, they might confine this licence to persons holding a wine and spirit licence. At present, licences to sell beer off the premises could be obtained by taking out a wholesale licence at a cost of £3 6s. 1¾d., and a retail licence at a cost of £1 2s. O½d., or a total of £4 8s. 2¼d.; but the question arose whether this sum was sufficiently large to insure his carrying out the requirements? He must satisfy the magistrate that the house was of a certain annual value; that he had not been guilty of any offence against good order; that he was a person of good character, and another condition which he did not at that moment remember. These matters being satisfactory, the magistrate was bound to grant the licence. The result of the Act of 1872 had, no doubt, been to restrict public-house licences, and the effect of that restriction had been to create a very large number of these outdoor licences, and he did not deny that there might be circumstances in connection with some of them that were to be regretted. What they had to consider was the remedy; and he would suggest whether it might not be possible to attach these licences to other licences. The spirit dealer's licence was £10 10s., and his wine licence £10 10s. In all, a 791 person in that trade had to pay a total of about £29 a-year, and that gave a large security for the good conduct of his business. The Committee which sat upon the subject of temperance expressed a very strong opinion against these licences being left to the discretion of the magistrates, and one objection was that it raised fresh vested interests. It certainly appeared a strong proposition that a measure of this kind, if it were good, should leave out spirits and confine itself to beer; and he earnestly appealed to the Government to reserve to themselves the power of considering the whole question at a future time.

§ VISCOUNT MIDLETON
felt compelled to give his hearty support to this Bill. He would not follow his noble Friend into details. He felt that the Bill was founded on sound principles, and it attained its object in a reasonable way. Certainly, no one having any experience on the subject could doubt that there was a real need for some change. Magistrates had no power to refuse these licences even in cases in which they were satisfied it was unadvisable to grant them. He might appeal to those who were conversant with the subject whether they were not frequently called upon to grant these licences when the number was already far too great? He might mention that in more than one fatal case which had come under his notice as the result of drunkenness the drink had been obtained, not from a licensed public-house, but from a place holding a licence to sell off the premises. He had also taken some trouble to make inquiries of the police, and they confirmed him in the view that these houses were not subject to the control to which public-houses were subject. He did not think much could be said in regard to the arbitrary decisions of magistrates in cases of this kind. For his part, he was under the impression that the tendency of magistrates was to leniency, and that they were not generally desirous of putting the law in force in all its severity. They might, therefore, safely be trusted with, the powers with which it was proposed to invest them under this Bill, and it was important that these powers should be identical with respect to the two classes of houses.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
was bound to say that, though this was a very small Bill, it raised a very large issue. 792 At present there was a very wide distinction between licences to sell liquor to be drunk on the premises and those which authorized the sale of liquor to be consumed off the premises. Licences for the sale on the premises were only granted at the discretion of the magistrates; but with regard to the sale of intoxicating liquors off the premises, the magistrates could only refuse the licence on statutory grounds. Either the house must not be of the necessary annual value, or the applicant must have been guilty of some offence against good order, or the character of the applicant must be proved to be bad. There was, therefore, a clear distinction between these two kinds of licences. Those on the premises being granted on the discretion of the magistrates, they were thereby become monopolies. There were, no doubt, some advantages connected with monopolies; but it must be remembered that there were also drawbacks. The noble Earl had mentioned that he had not included grocers' licences in the Bill. No doubt he had good reasons for not including them in the provisions of the Bill. But this showed the necessity for considering fairly the suggestion of his noble Friend, that these licences should be dealt with as a whole by the Government. The whole question had been very carefully considered by the Committee on Intemperance, and with especial reference to grocers' licences. They commenced their inquiry with a general feeling that something must be done to restrict the sale of intoxicating liquors by grocers; but the evidence did not bear out the assertion that any such change was desirable. The present measure was in opposition to the conclusion of the Committee; and he certainly thought any change of the kind proposed should be undertaken on the responsibility of the Government. It was also very important that it should be dealt with as a whole. It had been admitted that the object of the Bill was to introduce the thin edge of the wedge in order, after putting a stop to the sale of beer to be drunk on the premises, to withhold the licences for the sale of spirits to be drunk off the premises. The noble Earl had referred to the subject of secret drinking. He supposed a secret drinker was one who took his drink in his own house, an open drinker being one who took it at the public-house. He confessed he sympathized with the 793 former. The question was, were they prepared to allow only the richer classes to be able to obtain intoxicating liquors in other places than the public-house; were they going to force the poorer classes into the public-house? The Bill had certainly received very little attention. It was only by accident, the other evening, that he was made aware that such an important measure was being carried through their Lordships' House. It had passed the House of Commons with very little discussion, and he hoped it would not be read a second time.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
said, he thought the noble Earl had ascribed something to this Bill which it did not possess. It was simply carrying one step further the legislation of 1872–3. By that Act certain parties, who before that time were not called upon to obtain a magistrate's certificate before obtaining the licences, were compelled to do so.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
denied that this was so.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
said, he might be wrong in that contention; but the noble Earl said it was wrong in principle that the poor should be compelled to go to the public-house if they wanted a bottle of beer, while the rich were enabled to obtain what they wished without having recourse to the public-house. He certainly did not understand the Bill in that sense. He did not see anything in. it to prevent the continuance of the present system, the only promise being that it should be properly managed. The measure was in no sense a large one; and, if passed, would enable the magistrates to exercise a discretion in the issuing of the licences in question which they now did not possess. They had always exercised the powers intrusted to them with wisdom and moderation; and he did not think their Lordships would regret increasing the powers and the discretion they possessed at the present time. He supported the Bill.

LORD DENMAN
also supported the Bill. He had always held that the Act of 1872 would prove mischievous, because it violated the principle that everyone who sold alcoholic liquors should be under the control of the magistrates. Supposing a woman was supplied from a village beerhouse when thoroughly drunk—and such cases frequently came before magistrates—surely the licence 794 of such a place should be taken away. The Bill could do no possible harm.